Patents not necessary for innovation
Most patents are not litigated. That would be insanely expensive. What ends up is a policy of mutually-assured destruction, where big companies build up patent portfolios as a defensive measure. But this could be accomplished with a voluntarist patent system, where you lose protection of your patents, if you violate anyone else’s.
Most intellectual property is not patented. It is squirrelled away as trade secrets. It lies in the particular operations and tradecraft of millions of businesses. That means most of the innovative power of the economy is not dependent on the government-run patent system. Then we have to question whether the patent system itself is necessary.
Huge costs of patents
The supposed benefits of patents to innovators are the justification for the system. But the costs to innovators and startup businesses are overlooked.
Patent trolls build up massive patent portfolios and litigate against any startup in a particular field, even without merit, as the cost of defending is extremely high. This creates huge uncertainty in entrepreneurship and requires a lot of capital to start up. It is another example of government-mandated capital concentration.
Innovators are more likely to get hammered by a lawsuit, than to benefit from a patent that takes millions to grant and to defend. This means patents are not necessary for innovation and they actively discourage it. This obviates the very reason patents were created in the first place.
The costs greatly outweigh the benefits of the current patent system. And it certainly is not any better than a voluntarist system, that does not rely on violence for enforcement, but only mutal respect of participants’ intellectual property.
Something is different in politics recently. No, not Trump. I mean the global nature of previously domestic politics. In the past, there was a superficial awareness of geopolitics and foreign leaders. But now we have the same emotional, visceral response to other countries’ politicians, that used to be reserved for one’s own. Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Merkel, Wilders, Orban, Erdogan — have supporters and detractors across the world. There even seem to be the rough outlines of political alignment across boundaries, such as Nigel Farage stumping for Trump.
Social media has certainly contributed to this globalization of discourse. But there is a narrative structure to recent events. A disaffected, right-wing, populist, global “revolution” against the “establishment” is a unifying thread. Both sides of the political spectrum are engaging in cross-border alignments. Is there a deliberate unite-and-rule tactic happening, to drive us into yet another false, left-right paradigm? This time, it is pushing our consciousness to operate on the global level, rather than the national.
We are to believe that there is suddenly a groundswell of opposition to global governance, simultaneously, worldwide. This opposition is momentarily winning, but it is painted in the darkest terms, as something that must be defeated. Perhaps it is just one phase of the dialectic, to get us psychologically prepared for global governance.
Just as with national politics, there is a danger in engaging this new global politics. It is putting our faith, hope, time and energy into these pantheonic figures, completely removed from our lives, which might as well be cartoon characters on a screen. We ignore the local, the immediate, the personal. We should not buy into these false alignments and alliances, as if they are our saviors — a grand revolution around the world.
The real revolution is at home.
Money is a dirty word in the liberty movement. Ironic, for a pro-free-market and free trade ideology. But when theory becomes reality, many recoil at the idea of bloggers doing sales or advertising. Why?
Spending time to make content or technology means taking time away from other activities, whether business or leisure. That time has to be compensated. Yet some act like entitled socialists, expecting this work to be provided for free!
To be fair, some monetization strategies are obnoxious or spammy. But all that means is we need better monetization options. Better technologies. Better feedback and suggestion from audiences of what works and what doesn’t.
For the liberty movement to survive, much less thrive and change the world, it must be economically self-sufficient. If you can’t feed yourself, you can’t change the world. If our activities in pursuit of liberty are not profitable, but only financial drains, we will never grow and advance.
We need more business models around advancing liberty. We need more content, more media platforms, more technologies. With the fake news media collapsing before our eyes, there has never been a better opportunity than now. There is so much pent up demand and very little supply.
We need more liberty entrepreneurs.
Not just from an economic perspective, but from a psychological one as well. It can get depressing focusing only on what the poweful are doing to us. Who wants to be on a constantly losing team, with a victim mentality? It’s time we recognize our own power, take responsibility, and become agents of change.
I am working on several media technology projects with a group of liberty-minded developers and creators. Want to join the effort? Email me at apollo at apolloslater dot com and let’s get to work!
1. Philosophy – Your foundational ideology should be coherent and correspond to political reality; these are contradictory aims. Yet the dialectical process between these two requirements is what produces your reason for acting, your reason for being. Acting without it leaves you to the mercy of “some defunct economist“.
2. Education – This is not just the propagation of your ideology to others. It is the application of it to the particular backgrounds and historical circumstances of your target audience. Communication is a task in itself, yet the act of it also affects the thing being communicated.
3. Economy – You cannot change the world if you are scraping by. To effect change, your community of ideology must be economically vibrant. It must not only get by, but it must have a surplus of resources, time, and energy. It must also do so in a way that retains independence from the very power structure it is attempting to subvert.
4. Power – A self-sufficient and well-organized group is unstoppable, regardless of numbers. The challenge for a group propounding liberty is overcoming the history of such groups creating a tyranny, often worse than the one they replaced. For the old revolutionaries, the end justifies the means, for the end is the revolution, and it justifies all. The new revolutionaries must overturn the cycle between tyranny and revolution; therefore, the means can only be justified by their ideological ethics; therefore, the means is the revolution; therefore, the means is the end.
Twitter is altering language, not just on Twitter, but across all media. Everything is being compactified; short attention spans demand it. Among the benefits are brevity, efficiency, and impact. The downside is the destruction of nuance and precision. Dropped indefinite articles, sentence fragments, and an explosion of abbreviations and acronyms. The danger is a form of Newspeak, in which a decrease in expressiveness of language yields a constricting of thought itself.
Will our capacity for conceptualization be limited to the lowest common denominator or will this punchy format lead to communicating new ideas that otherwise would have collected dust in long-form academic essays?
The Trump phenomenon has splintered the libertarian movement into three distinct groups. The massive political realignment taking place has exposed fractures that have existed for a long time. How will these factions reconcile and will they constitute a unified movement in the future?
Left-libertarians – Typically DC beltway libertarians and wannabe respectable types. The biggest of the three groups, they are best represented by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson. They value left social issues and are animated by anti-racism, gay marriage, and baking of cakes. They also think Trump is racist and hates women. Any good that may come from Trump’s challenge of the establishment is overshadowed by his being Pure Evil.
Paleo-conservatives – People like Lew Rockwell and Jeff Deist. They value nationalism and traditional right views on culture, immigrants, and political correctness. There is a silver lining to every one of Trump’s totalitarian or economically destructive proposals.
Voluntarists – The smallest faction, with people like Robert Wenzel and James Corbett. They see Trump as not much different from Hillary or any of the other candidates, and a potential disaster for the country and the libertarian brand. They tend to point out both the good aspects and terrible aspects of Trump’s proposals.
There’s been a lot of discussion in the libertarian crowd about Trump’s immigration policy and whether libertarians should support open borders. The tension is between the ideal of freedom of movement, in the context of private property, versus the practical effect that importing many people costs taxpayers money and may lead to voting for more government.
Supposedly a private property society would result in border property owners blocking immigrants, but as my cover meme shows, it just takes one to let people through. So, strictly from an ethical perspective, open borders seems the right choice. The practical effects in a welfare state democracy are a different issue. Once you start going down the utilitarianism road though, you use “ends justifies the means” reasoning and eventually end up back at statism. It seems the best solution, and political compromise, would be to allow open borders on the condition that immigrants receive no government benefits or voting rights. We’d be slowly importing supporters of a voluntary society!
It is an auspicious time for independent media. The Fake Media’s “fake news” hysteria has capped off this year’s apotheosis of undisguised propaganda. Now we learn that the US government will directly fund domestic pro-government propaganda in the press and on social media, with $160 million. Let me explain why this is amazing news for independent media.
The media world has supply and demand, just like any other market. There is a demand out there for real information and it is up to the media to satisfy that demand. The more the media avoid this, and publish lies and hoaxes instead, the more business opportunity there is to fill the void. This is how Fox News became such a cable news powerhouse. Due to the “fake news” hysteria, the big platforms Facebook, Google, and Twitter are censoring alternative voices. This creates an opportunity for a Fox News of social media (perhaps many!).
The government’s funding of propaganda reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of media. It is treating the internet as an “enemy weapons system“. But media consumption is not a win-lose, zero-sum game. All this does is crowd out existing journalism and reduces the supply of real information. But the demand remains the same. That means there is now an even greater business opportunity for free speech advocates than before.
We have a real, tangible, action plan to dismantle the establishment’s hold on power: Start new media platforms and especially new media technologies. Let us create independent media content, independent social networks, independent ad networks, independent video sharing, … independent everything! The opportunities are boundless. I myself am working with a group on such a project in the media tech space. If you are interested in learning more about our effort, please email me at apollo at apolloslater dot com.
Vive la resistance!